Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 281, Issue 5, pp 839–843 | Cite as

Polycystic ovaries: review of medical information on the internet for patients

  • Channamallikarjuna Swamy Mallappa SarojaEmail author
  • Sapna Hanji Chandrashekar
General Gynecology



Often, internet can bring a sense of anxiety rather than information and understanding to the patient. Our aim was to assess the quality of information available for patients on the management of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) on the internet.

Materials and methods

Five search engines were searched using phrases ‘PCOS and ‘patient information’. Various parameters of quality that were assessed were source, currency and editorial review process (for credibility) and hierarchy and accuracy of evidence (for content of the websites).


Fifteen relevant websites were located, none of which complied with all the criteria for quality. Complete information on PCOS was not provided by any of the website to women according to the quality criteria.


With 1,000 of websites launched everyday, it is difficult for patients to determine which website is trustworthy and valid. Patients need to be watchful about quality of the information on medical conditions in the internet.


Internet Patient information Polycystic ovaries Websites 


Conflict of interest statement



  1. 1.
    Asuncion M, Calvo RM, San Millan JL, Sancho J, Avila S, Escobar-Morreale HF (2000) A prospective study of the prevalence of the polycystic ovary syndrome in unselected Caucasian women from Spain. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 85:2434–2438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Azziz R, Woods KS, Reyna R et al (2004) The prevalence and features of the polycystic ovary syndrome in an unselected population. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 89(6):2745–2749CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Broom A (2005) Virtually healthy: the impact of internet use on disease experience and the doctor–patient relationship. Qual Health Res 15:325–345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diamanti-Kandarakis E (2008) Polycystic ovarian syndrome: pathophysiology, molecular aspects and clinical implications. Expert Rev Mol Med 10:e3 (review)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donabedian A (1980) Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. The definition of quality and approaches to its assessment, vol 1. Health Administration Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eng TR (2001) eHealth landscape—a terrain map of emerging information and communication technologies in health and health care. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ESHRE/ASRM–Sponsored PCOS Consensus Workshop Group E (2004) Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Fertil Steril 81:19–25Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER (2002) Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the worldwide web: a systematic review. JAMA 287(20):2691–2700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ferguson T, Frydman G (2004) The first generation of e-patients. Br Med J 328:1148–1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Frank A (1995) The wounded storyteller: body, illness and ethics. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IMO warns against online self diagnosis, Irish Times, 9 September 2008Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee ISO/TC 176 (1994) ISO 8402: quality management and quality assurance vocabulary, 2nd edn. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1994(1994-04-01)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kitzinger C, Willmott J (2002) ‘The thief of womanhood’: women’s experience of polycystic ovarian syndrome. Soc Sci Med 54:349–361CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Knochenhauer ES, Key TJ, Kahsar-Miller M et al (1998) Prevalence of the polycystic ovary syndrome in unselected black and white women of the southeastern United States: a prospective study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83(9):3078–3082CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shrout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86(2):420–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sproule JA, Tansey C, Burns B, Fenelon G (2003) The web: friend or foe of the hand surgeon? Hand Surg 8(2):181–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Streiner DL, Norman GR (1989) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sullivan D (2006) Nielsen net ratings search engine ratings search engine watch, 22 Aug 2006.
  19. 19.
    Weisbord SD, Soule JB, Kimmel PL (1997) Brief report: poison on line—acute renal failure caused by oil of wormwood purchased through the internet. N Engl J Med 337(12):825–827CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wyatt JC (1997) Commentary: measuring quality and impact of the worldwide web. Br Med J 314:1879–1881Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Channamallikarjuna Swamy Mallappa Saroja
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sapna Hanji Chandrashekar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Nevill Hall HospitalGwent Healthcare NHS TrustAbergavenny, GwentSouth Wales, UK
  2. 2.Royal Shrewsbury HospitalThe Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS TrustShrewsburyUK

Personalised recommendations